Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

And how would that sit with the general population when you try to extend that to homosexuals with nothing they are allowed to do about that? If the Democrats try that, you'll never see another Democrat in teh Whitehouse as long as you live!

 

Well, people in Massachusetts are fine with it. No riots here and the Democrats are still in most of our major offices.

 

I kind of doubt that - the places where the backlash would be the loudest would be from conservative areas that tend to vote Republican anyway. You will surely tick off the Christian Consevative community, but 90% of them vote Republican anyway, so they aren't people who support you in the first place. You live in a country that has legalized gay marriage. Have liberal politicians gone extinct in Canada? I'm guessing no.

That's because most people do not look at gay marriage as a major issue. While I think gays should be allowed to marry, it wouldn't make my list of top things the US needs to accomplish in the next few years. Given that the economy is in the tank, banks or failing, the housing bubble popped (with another pop coming in the next year), and unemployment steadily rising, I hardly think that whether or not gays can get married is on top of many people list of chief concerns.

Of course, the Democrats know this too, which is why I don't see any action of significance taking place on the federal level any time soon. This is a process that America has to work its way though. In a very real sense, the gays of today are in the same place as African Americans were 40 years ago. Eventually, the old school way of thought dies out (and I mean that literally), and is replaced with a new mindset. I think the same thing will happen with gay rights. We never would have elected a black president until a time came when the majority of voters were not old enough to remember segregation.

I think gays of today are being denied many basic rights, and it is generally something that takes about a generation for enough people to come around to the idea that this is the case. The problem for gays is that the vocal gay rights movement has only been around for about 10-15 years now, and it probably is going to be another 10-15 years before they get to where they want to be. The youngest people are the most tolerant of this issue. The oldest people are the least tolerant. The day for gay rights is coming - it just isn't here yet.

 

Well said, Aldeth

I would like to comment on one thing:

The Liberal party's popularity is fairly low right now (and other left-leaning parties have never been that popular). I'm guessing that Gnarff will try to tell you that one of the main reasons for the Liberal's low popularity is the fact that they legalized gay marriage (he's tried to sell this before). However, the reality is that legalizing gay marriage never really hurt the Liberals; those that were the ticked off by it vote Conservative anyway. No, the Liberals aren't doing well because of poor strategies implemented in the recent federal election, and the general perception that their leader (who recently resigned) had no leadership capabilities.

 

I always find that when you tell someone or a group of people that what they are doing is wrong, that individual or group will continue to do what they feel is right.

Now, what gives anyone the God given right to condem people for their sexual preference? Nothing.

People should be able to choose what they prefer and others around them should accept that person for the way they are.

Happiness should be the only thing that matters and if their prefernce is being homosexual and it makes them happy let them live that life style in peace.

 

Why should the Government even be involved in the marriage process? Why can't it be a personal affair, in the same manner sexual relations are?

It's also blatant discrimination for married couples to receive tax breaks, while single/de-factos do not.

 

Yes, just like it's discrimination to give a tax break to anyone who donates to a charity. Count, taxation has been used to try to effect social change for centuries. You give tax breaks to the things you want to promote and extra taxes to the things you want to kill off (like cigarettes). Obviously, for a long, long time, the US government has felt that being married, and especially married with kids, is something to promote.

 

While I am aware that there is a Liberal Party in Canada (mostly due to conversations I've had on this board) I was using the term liberal with the small "l" as I was not singling out that particular party.

The larger point I was making that most liberals do not view gay rights as a major issue for them - there are bigger fish to fry.

I largely agree with NOG's comments and I would like to add that unless you are gay and living in a state that does not allow gay marriage or civil unions, it's not discriminatory at all, because you are allowed to get married and receive the tax break as well.

 

Wow, you people are totally mental!! Who thought that the rights of a group of individuals would stir up so many old, unoriginal, boring arguments?

I didn't even realise that so many people on SP were scared of homosexuality!

[Warning pending. -Tal]

 

What about the 30 states where the people--via the ballot--explicitly defined marriage as one man and one woman?

But they have taken a severe hit. It's not all from Gay Marriage, but I do believe it played a contributing role. Now play that in a two party system, where those that oppose gay marriage have only two choices--the guy that supported gay marriage and the guy that opposed it--and see if there's a backlash...

Yes, with so many pressing concerns, I can see why the Democrats wouldn't be in a hurry to commit political suicide...

The Supreme Court even has a precedent that supports marriage in it's traditional form--one man, one woman--and criminalizes the alternative.

I don't think this one will. People have been waiting thousands of years for Religion to die out. It's not going to happen.

God, of course. The forbiddance of homosexuality is a divine edict. That's also why the opposition to gay marriage is so strongly worded.

The problem arises when THEY try to change the definition of a religious ordinance. Religious groups have, fort the most part, stopped harrassing homosexuals (no promises about renegade members). As long as they stay to themselves, there wouldn't be a problem...

But it's not about gay rights. If it was, then a compromise where gays get their civil rights and yet see Marriage protected would be readily accepted and this would have stalled out a few pages ago. This seems to be more about socially engineering out an unpopular group--one which I am a member. There are some in society that seek to erode our own segment of the population by tearing away at what we consider sacred. It's an attempt to oppress a group they disagree with...

 

What lousy logic. That's like saying that it's not discrimination for Christians to receive a $5,000 tax break, because anyone in allowed to convert to Christianity and receive the tax break as well.

Quite simply, the government doesn't exist to reward citizens for adopting particular personal lifestyles. That's discrimination.

 

Except that would be in direct violation of the 1st Amdendment of the Constitution, so it's a rather poor example. I am also bemused that based on your reply and several other of your posts, you seem to think a person's logic is directly proportional to how well his or her opinion matches your own.

@Gnarff:

You are making a totally different comparison that what I was making. When you are talking about a ballot initiative or ballot proposition you are asking people to consider one very specific issue. I will concede that in such a case, over half of those support a traditional definition of marriage.

My point was simply that most people do not consider gay marriage to be such an important issue (whether they support it or are against it) that it is the deciding factor in their vote when selecting a president or prime minister. In a general election you are selecting which person (or in the case of a parliamentary system which party) you like best when considering all of the issues as a whole. Believe it or not, there are some Republican members of Congress that support gay marriage. Just like there are some Democratic members of Congress who are pro-life. It is possible to support a candidate even if you disagree with him on one issue, if you like the other 90% of his platform better than the other guy's.

Let's use the US Presidential election as an example. If you are a hawk and your most important issue was continuing the war in Iraq for as long as it takes to bring Democracy to that country, then chances are you supported John McCain, no matter what your view of gay marriage happened to be. Similarly, if you are a tree hugger and your most important issue was preventing off shore drilling and mantaining ANWR in pristine condition, then chances are you voted for Barack Obama no matter what you thought about gay marriage.

As I aluded to earlier, it would only happen if there were an uncharacteristically high number of one issue voters, and that gay marriage was the one issue. You cannot compare a general election to a ballot initiative, because in the case of the latter everyone - by definition - is a one issue voter.

I'm not saying religion will die out in a generation. You're right - that won't happen. The "old school way of thought" I was referencing was the attitude towards gay marriage - not the attitude towards religion. (You would also do well to remember that there was a time in the not too distant past where people thought that blacks would "never" be free, and that women would "never" have the right to vote. Attitudes can undergo drastic changes over time.)

EDIT: and slightly off-topic - why was Silvery given a warning? Is thinking someone is scared of homosexuality considered to be insulting?

 

But when a candidate puts something in place despite KNOWING the objection your state has to that same thing, would that not at least influence the way these people--likely in the center of the political spectrum--view the candidate when it's time to be re-elected? With a borderline state like Florida, it could be enough to push the Republicans over the top as opposed to the Democrats.

The President is not always right, but what the President says goes. And if he says enough stupid stuff, so do his supporters. It happened to Bush, and it CAN happen to Obama if he's not careful.

Again, I don't see that changing. At best, there will be more sympathy, but suppot for Separate but Equal. The Religious will insist on Separation of the accomodation made for homosexuals, that they may have Equal civil rights. Calling it Marriage will only enrage the religious, and polarize them against Gay Rights, and thus the homosexuals will continue to be a second class under the law.

But not in this case. Having black skin and/or a vagina are not sins. Having sex with someone of the same gender is a sin. That will not be changing. Society will be more humane towards them, but there will always be a significant portion of the population that will never truly accept them.

 

Red herring logic fallacy. Whether offering a tax break to Christians is against your Constitution is irrelevant to the observation that it is a form of discrimination, especially since not everyone here is from the grand ole U.S.A. My logic is straightforward and simple: If offering a tax break to Christians is discrimination, then it is also a form of discrimination to offer a tax break to married couples. Both are personal lifestyles of choice, and the government is promoting certain lifestyles over others.

No? I enjoy pointing out fallicious logic, even if the individual engaging in argumentum ad rectum has an opinion similar to my own.

 

Is there a legitimate* non-religious argument against non-heterosexual marriage?


*As in, one that is not based on homophobia.


EDIT: Haha, to clear things up: I was asking if there is an argument that does not fall into either of these two separate arguments: religious (1) and homophobic (2). I am not implying that the religious argument is homophobic.

 

No, but we came to that conclusion already in a whole other thread.

 

Very well - have it your way. I don't agree with your premise, but I won't try to change your mind. I mean, almost every tax break the government offers favors certain lifestyles over certain others, so the only way I could agree with your premise would be if you opposed all tax breaks.

I seem to have underestimated your wit. Now THAT is funny.

Perhaps, but I really don't know. And there's no way anyone can know. That's why I'm saying it's an apples or oranges comparison. A ballot initiative asks people to voice their opinion on a very specific issue. They are likely to vote on it, even if it's an issue that they don't have strong feelings about.

I'm a good example of this: While I support the legalization of gay marriage, it doesn't make my list of top issues. In a ballot initiative, I would vote for making it legal, but I would never vote for a candidate just because he supported gay marriage - it just isn't an important enough issue for me. In order for me to answer your question, I would have to know how many people who oppose gay marriage feel strongly enough about it for it to be an important issue for them, and also how close a given election happens to be. While I suspect that the number of voters who oppose gay marriage and view it as the most important is small, I suppose if the election were tight enough, it could theoretically make a difference.

But it still misses my larger point: The number of people who feel strongly about gay marriage one way or the other is small. Translating a ballot initiative over to a general election is very difficult to do, because there is no way to tell how important that individual issue is to each voter.

 

Religion is NOT homophobic. Religion carries with it a set of moral values--including a prohibition of homosexuality and an explicit definition of marriage. It is about right and wrong, not about hatred.

Actually, it was decided by some people before any such thread started, and they've been hurling the same inaccurate perception ever since.

But tally up these issues and see how the candidate stacks up. I'm guessing that in California, on the Gay Marriage issue, those that opposed it took it VERY seriously. They would likely remember this in 2012 if the feds over rule the decision of the people.

Okay, but...

Look at California, I heard that 56% voted Democrat, but 52% opposed Gay Marriage. Because they are actually continuing a social iniquity*, this is not done lightly, so they would likely place a higher value on the issue than some that support Gay Marriage would. Could that make the difference?

* This assumes that civil unions or domestic partnerships are not the issue. I've said for pages now that the civil rights could be offered to homosexuals without extending marriage itself to them. This has been repeatedly called inadequate, thus homosexuals can blame activists, not the religious faithful for their lack of rights.

And you miss my point that a politician that knowingly acts against the wishes of the people will not have much luck when it comes time to seek re-election...

 

I didn't say it was. I was implying that a non-religious argument usually comes from homophobia and is therefore not legitimate: you argue against gay marriage because you believe it is a core part of your faith, homophobes argue because they irrationally hate them. I was asking if there was an alternative to those two arguments. In fact, my statement was respectful to your religion and implied that the religious side is NOT homophobic.

 

So disliking someone because you believe the big eye in the sky says so is not irrational hatred? Hatred is a stupid word and I do not understand how the word "homophobe" got tied down with it or the pathological fear others attribute to it. I am pretty sure that by most definitions disapproving and disliking homosexuals because you believe your religion demands it of you makes you a homophobe.

The same perception is being hurled again and again because it hasn't been disproven. Nothing has come up to change what I wrote way back in another thread on this subject. You twist and you turn and you all come back to the same point and proving my old statement.